Situational meaninglessness and state boredom: Cross-sectional and experience-sampling findings

Abstract

Theories of boredom assert that boredom is a product of situational meaninglessness. We conducted two studies to test if the perceived meaningfulness of a situation is associated with state boredom, above and beyond sadness, personality traits, and boredom proneness. In Study 1, 105 participants (72.4% female: mean age = 33.9 years, SD = 17.5) described situations in which they experienced boredom, no boredom, engagement, or sadness. They then rated the level of state boredom, sadness, and meaninglessness that they experienced in that situation. As hypothesized, state boredom was associated with situational meaninglessness, before and after controlling for sadness. In Study 2, 148 participants (73.0% female; mean age = 19.2 years, SD = 1.8) first provided baseline data on personality traits and boredom proneness. Through a smartphone app-based experience-sampling method, they then responded to a brief questionnaire multiple times a day, across 7 days. The questionnaire asked about the nature of their current activity, whether the activity was done alone or with other people, and their affective state. Results from multilevel modelling of 3022 entries suggest that perceived meaningfulness of the activity was negatively associated with state boredom, above and beyond sadness, personality, and boredom proneness. We also found that being with others during the activity acted as a moderator; activities lower in perceived meaningfulness were associated with higher ratings of state boredom when done with others than when done alone. These results demonstrate that perceptions of meaninglessness characterize state boredom.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Motivation and Emotion
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9693-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Situational meaninglessness andstate boredom: Cross-sectional
andexperience-sampling findings
ChristianS.Chan1· WijnandA.P.vanTilburg2· EricR.Igou3· CyaneaY.S.Poon1· KatyY.Y.Tam1· VenusU.T.Wong1·
S.K.Cheung1
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
Theories of boredom assert that boredom is a product of situational meaninglessness. We conducted two studies to test if
the perceived meaningfulness of a situation is associated with state boredom, above and beyond sadness, personality traits,
and boredom proneness. In Study 1, 105 participants (72.4% female: mean age = 33.9years, SD = 17.5) described situa-
tions in which they experienced boredom, no boredom, engagement, or sadness. They then rated the level of state boredom,
sadness, and meaninglessness that they experienced in that situation. As hypothesized, state boredom was associated with
situational meaninglessness, before and after controlling for sadness. In Study 2, 148 participants (73.0% female; mean
age = 19.2 years, SD = 1.8) first provided baseline data on personality traits and boredom proneness. Through a smartphone
app-based experience-sampling method, they then responded to a brief questionnaire multiple times a day, across 7days.
The questionnaire asked about the nature of their current activity, whether the activity was done alone or with other people,
and their affective state. Results from multilevel modelling of 3022 entries suggest that perceived meaningfulness of the
activity was negatively associated with state boredom, above and beyond sadness, personality, and boredom proneness. We
also found that being with others during the activity acted as a moderator; activities lower in perceived meaningfulness were
associated with higher ratings of state boredom when done with others than when done alone. These results demonstrate that
perceptions of meaninglessness characterize state boredom.
Keywords Boredom proneness· State boredom· Meaning· Existential psychology· Experience sampling
Introduction
Boredom is a universal and prevalent emotion that people
experience in everyday life. Theoretical explorations (e.g.,
Barbalet 1999) and empirical studies (e.g., Fahlman etal.
2009; Van Tilburg and Igou 2012, 2017a) converge to sug-
gest that boredom may involve the lack of perceived mean-
ing in the task at hand. The bulk of the existing literature
focuses on overarching life meaning and boredom prone-
ness. It remains unclear whether situational, task-specific
meaning is related to state boredom. The current study
aimed to address this gap by examining the association
between moment-to-moment meaning appraisal and state
boredom using experience-sampling methods.
Boredom asadistinctive emotion
Boredom is defined as an aversive experience people have
when they want, but are unable, to engage in a satisfying
activity (Eastwood etal. 2012). When bored, people are una-
ble to engage attention with the boredom-inducing stimulus
or situation, are aware of the fact that they fail to do so, and
that they attribute the cause of boredom to external factors,
such as the lack of stimuli (Eastwood etal. 2012; Smith and
Ellsworth 1985).
Although boredom shares some experiential components
with other emotions, it is a distinct affective state (Goldberg
etal. 2011; Parkhurst and Hopmeyer 1999; Van Tilburg and
* Christian S. Chan
shaunlyn@hku.hk
1 Department ofPsychology, The University ofHong Kong,
HongKong, HongKong
2 School ofPsychology, King’s College London, London, UK
3 Department ofPsychology, University ofLimerick,
Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
Igou 2012, 2017a). As with sadness, boredom is unpleas-
ant (Van Tilburg and Igou 2012). As with happiness and
pride, bored people anticipate expending very little effort
while being certain about the situation they are experienc-
ing (Smith and Ellsworth 1985). Boredom is also correlated
with apathy, anhedonia, and depression in varying degrees
(Goldberg etal. 2011).
Boredom is distinct from other emotions in its totality,
that is, when the central features of boredom are considered.
Van Tilburg and Igou (2012) noted that boredom has a sta-
ble set of feelings, cognitions, thoughts, motivations, action
tendencies, and expressions that differ from other negative
emotions. In particular, they found that boredom differs from
anger, sadness, and frustration in that it makes people feel
unchallenged. More recent work evidences that boredom is
different from many other negative emotions, especially with
regard to a sense of purposelessness combined with atten-
tional disengagement (Eastwood etal. 2012; Van Tilburg
and Igou 2017a). In terms of psychophysiological responses,
heart rate, skin conductance levels, and cortisol levels asso-
ciated with boredom are discriminative from other emo-
tional states (Merrifield and Danckert 2014). Furthermore,
Wallbott (1998) found distinct bodily gestures for boredom
relative to other negative emotions. Although boredom does
resemble other aversive emotional experience in terms of
affective components at face value, it is a distinct emotion.
Boredom: state versusproneness
Researchers have studied both the propensity to experience
boredom—boredom proneness—and state boredom (Green-
son 1953; Neu 1998; O’Connor 1967). Propensity for bore-
dom is a quality a person possesses that predisposes one’s
vulnerability to experience boredom. It connotes individual
differences in how a person reacts across situations and how
easily one perceives a situation as boring. It is a relatively
stable and chronic characteristic (Ng etal. 2015).
State boredom, however, is situation based. It is typi-
cally momentary and transient (Fisher 1993; Mikulas and
Vodanovich 1993). A bored state is often brought about by
activities or situations that are perceived as dull, monoto-
nous, repetitive, and perceived by the individual as purpose-
less and unchallenging (O’Hanlon 1981; Van Tilburg and
Igou 2012). When one remains in a boring situation, atten-
tion tends to drift away (Eastwood etal. 2012); one may
become restless and frustrated (Farmer and Sundberg 1986);
time may be perceived to be dragging and passing slowly
(Martin etal. 2006).
Boredom proneness and state boredom are related yet dis-
tinct constructs. Studies that measured both have found that
the strength of their association is moderate (Fahlman etal.
2013; Mercer-Lynn etal. 2014). Furthermore, Mercer-Lynn
etal. (2014) found that boredom proneness predicted state
boredom above and beyond boredom-inducing experimental
condition, suggesting that people with higher boredom pro-
pensity are more likely to experience state boredom. Bore-
dom proneness and state boredom are intertwined, and their
relationship needs to be examined closely.
Boredom proneness is not the only factor predicting state
boredom. Studies have found that the importance of situ-
ational factors, above and beyond personal predisposition,
in causing state boredom (Chin etal. 2017; Mercer-Lynn
etal. 2014). In theory, boredom proneness constitutes the
disposition of a person, which can manifest in terms of the
frequency of experiencing boredom (Elpidorou 2014). How-
ever, this has yet to be demonstrated empirically. To date,
no studies have employed a measure of boredom proneness
[e.g., Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS); Farmer and Sund-
berg 1986] to predict the frequency of state boredom across
multiple time points and occasions.
Boredom andmeaning
Prior to the advent of “boredom” emerging as a common
experience, “acedia” was the term to describe a state of
meaninglessness, especially among monks and nuns and
nobilities (Altschule 1965; Svendsen 2005). This termino-
logical predecessor of boredom as well as boredom itself
have been argued to be products of a lack of meaning (Fahl-
man etal. 2009; see also Coughlan etal. 2017), but boredom
in this regard was more akin to a general dissatisfaction than
a moment-to-moment feeling.
With rising number of boredom research in recent years,
many studies have investigated on the predictors of boredom
proneness (e.g., Gerritsen etal. 2014; Isacescu etal. 2016);
yet, there are few empirical studies on the causes of state
boredom. This might be due to methodological difficulties
in conducting laboratory studies, such as documentation of
sequential emotion change, individual difference in boredom
propensity, and controlling for emotions other than boredom.
More recently, researchers have begun to make advances in
this area. One study established failure in sustained attention as
a cause of state boredom, by documenting temporal changes in
state boredom during an attention task (Hunter and Eastwood
2016). Lack of meaning has also been long held as a cause of
boredom (Barbalet 1999). Van Tilburg and Igou (2012, 2017a)
demonstrated that perceiving a situation being meaningless is
a distinct experiential component of boredom. In Van Tilburg
and Igou (2011, 2017b), participants in the high boredom con-
dition reported a greater sense of meaninglessness than those
in the low boredom condition. Another group of researchers
manipulated the sense of meaningfulness in their participants
by asking them to recall a meaningless life event (Fahlman
etal. 2009). The results indicated heightened level of state

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
boredom, compared to those who recalled a meaningful life
event. In addition, a panel data study by Anusic etal. (2016)
using a day reconstruction method indicated that activities
associated with high levels of meaning, such as meditation,
sports, and gardening, tended to be associated with relatively
low levels of boredom. These findings converge to suggest that
there is a closely interlocking relationship between boredom
and meaning, and situational meaninglessness could therefore
be a predictor of state boredom.
Chin etal. (2017) drew a different conclusion from their
experience sampling data, however. Although they found
that the probability of experiencing boredom varied across
activities (e.g., high when studying and low when at the
gym), the authors inferred that because the meaningfulness
of these activities cannot be assumed to be different, the
influence of meaningfulness on boredom is unsubstantiated.
Without measuring the moment-to-moment perceived situ-
ational meaningfulness, however, the link between the two
constructs remains an empirical question to be addressed.
Current studies
Taken together, although some studies have suggested
that perceived meaningfulness of a situation is a predictor
of state boredom, thus far no empirical study has offered
data that directly examine this link. Across two studies, we
examined the relationship between perceptions of a situ-
ation and experienced boredom. Specifically we tested if
perceived meaninglessness of the situation causes state
boredom. Furthermore, we also tested if the link between
situational meaninglessness and state boredom existed above
and beyond various other factors, such as boredom prone-
ness, personality factors, and sadness. Study 1 was a cross-
sectional experimental study relying on participants’ retro-
spective report of past incidences. Study 2 used experience
sampling method to capture multiple real-life incidences
across a 7-day period. In both studies, we hypothesized that
appraised meaninglessness of a task was associated with
reported state boredom. Conducting two separate studies
allowed us to test our hypotheses with different methodol-
ogy; a controlled experimental study and a more natural-
istic experience sampling study. This approach allowed us
to examine the link between boredom and meaning using
approaches typically characterized by relatively high inter-
nal validity (Study 1) and relatively high external validity
(Study 2).
Study 1
Study 1 served as an initial test of our prediction that state
boredom is associated with perceived situational mean-
inglessness. To test this, participants recalled past boring
experiences and evaluated these in terms of boredom, sad-
ness, and situational meaninglessness. We compared these
evaluations against evaluations of three other situations:
situations that featured no boredom, situations that were
engaging, and situations that were saddening. By comparing
people’s perceptions of boring situations against those three
others we hypothesized that (1) boredom was characterized
by situational meaninglessness, and (2) this association was
specific to boredom in comparison to another form of nega-
tive affect, in this case sadness.
Method
Participants anddesign
One hundred and five people visiting a shopping mall of a
large city (29 men, 76 women; Mage = 33.94, SD = 17.48)
participated in a short paper-and-pencil study. The study had
a between-subjects design with four conditions (boredom vs.
no boredom vs. engagement vs. sadness).
Procedure andmaterials
Participants were seated in a café and were given a short
paper-and-pencil questionnaire entitled “feelings and emo-
tions.” After participants gave their informed consent and
reported demographic information, we randomly assigned
them to one of the four conditions. Specifically, they either
described a situation in which they experienced boredom,
no boredom, experienced sadness, or felt engaged. Partici-
pants then responded to the questions “How bored did you
feel during this situation?” and “How sad did you feel dur-
ing this situation?” on 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all,
7 = very much). We then measured the meaninglessness of
this described situation by having participants indicate the
extent to which this situation was meaningless, purposeless,
senseless, valueless, and insignificant (1 = not at all, 7 = very
much; Van Tilburg and Igou 2012).
Ethics Participants’ consents were obtained prior to their
taking part in the study. Participants received a (non-alco-
holic) beverage at a local café in exchange for participating
in the study. Ethical approval was received from theUniver-
sity of Limerick prior to data collection.
Results
State boredom
A one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences in
levels of boredom, F(3, 101) = 33.81, p < .001, η2 = .50.
Boredom was higher in the boring situations (M = 6.05,
SD = 0.71) compared to no boredom situations (M = 1.54,

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
SD = 1.37), sad situations (M = 2.03, SD = 1.63), and
situations in which participants felt engaged (M = 2.16,
SD = 2.30), all ps < .001. The latter three conditions did not
differ significantly (ps > .17).
State sadness
Sadness significantly differed across situations, F(3,
101) = 32.38, p < .001, η2 = .49. More sadness was experi-
enced in the sad situations (M = 6.15, SD = 1.44) compared
to the boredom situations (M = 2.63, SD = 1.67), the no bore-
dom situations (M = 1.64, SD = 1.79), and the engagement
situations (M = 3.16, SD = 2.54), all ps < .001. More sadness
was present in the engagement compared to the no bore-
dom situations, t(101) = 2.93, p < .01, d = 0.58, and sadness
was higher in the boredom compared to the no boredom
situations, t(101) = 1.77, p = .08, d = 0.35. The boredom and
engagement situations did not differ significantly (t < 1).
Situational meaninglessness
We computed average scores on the perceived meaningless-
ness items (internal consistency: α = .93). We found signifi-
cant differences in the perceived meaninglessness of the situ-
ation, F(3, 100) = 15.15, p < .001, η2 = .31. Boring situations
were perceived as more meaningless (M = 4.75, SD = 1.91)
compared to sad situations (M = 2.69, SD = 1.72), situations
that did not involve boredom (M = 1.84, SD = 1.38), and situ-
ations that felt engaging (M = 1.82, SD = 1.50), all ps < .001.
Thinking of sad situations yielded higher meaninglessness
compared to the engaging situation, t(100) = 2.01, p = .05,
d = 0.40, and situations without boredom, t(100) = 2.01,
p = .05, d = 0.40; these latter two did not differ significantly
from each other (t < 1).
We additionally tested whether boring event were char-
acterized by meaninglessness above and beyond the sadness
potentially associated with these events. We tested this by
including sadness as covariate in an ANCOVA. The recalled
experiences still affected perceived meaninglessness, F(3,
99) = 15.06, p < .001, η 2 = .31. Also, the correlation between
boredom and meaninglessness of the situation (r = .57,
p < .001) remained significant after controlling for sadness
(rp = .83, p < .001).
Discussion
The results of this study indicate, as hypothesized, that
state boredom was associated with situational meaningless-
ness. In addition, this association occurred after controlling
for another, presumably more general, form of negative
affect: sadness. That is, the increase in meaninglessness
as a function of boredom was essentially unrelated to sad-
ness. The finding that the link between state boredom and
meaninglessness exists independently of sadness is impor-
tant as it illustrates that boredom’s association with mean-
inglessness is not just representing any form of negative
affect but rather seems to be especially pronounced for state
boredom. It remains unclear, however, whether one feels
bored in any given moment is because he or she is prone
to feel bored, or whether the situational perceived lack of
meaning predicts boredom above and beyond their boredom
proneness. Study 2 was designed to investigate this.
Study 1 relied on recalled experiences, and this recall
may not result in entirely correct representations of these
past events. Indeed, negative features of memories tend to
be forgotten over time (Ritchie etal. 2015). This may have
added some measurement error to the estimated relationship
between boredom, meaninglessness, and sadness. Study 2
instead relied on an experience sampling approach, increas-
ing the accuracy of participants’ responses and offering
a window into boredom experiences during the course of
real-life.
Study 2
We conducted Study 2 to examine the relationship between
state boredom and perceived meaning using a 7-day, multi-
ple-times per day, experience-sampling method. We hypoth-
esized that perceived situational meaning was associated
with state boredom, even after controlling for sadness and
boredom proneness. Several studies have investigated the
relationship between boredom proneness and personality
constructs. Boredom proneness was found to be negatively
correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, honesty/humility, and openness to experience (Culp
2006; Hunter etal. 2016) and positively with neuroticism
(Mercer-Lynn etal. 2013). As such, we estimated the rela-
tionship between boredom and situational meaninglessness
before and after controlling for personality in this study. Fur-
thermore, because people tend to feel more bored during
the week (Chin etal. 2017), we also added weekday versus
weekend as a covariate. Finally, we explored whether or not
the activity was done with others as a potential moderator.
Boredom andaloneness
Boredom and loneliness appear to be related but sufficiently
different affective states. Yet, studies have found that people
tend to feel bored when they are alone. Van Tilburg and Igou
(2012), for example, found that being alone was a frequently
described situational characteristic of boredom experiences.
According to Anusic etal. (2016), activities that are gener-
ally done alone, such as relaxing and watching TV, tended
to be associated with high levels of boredom. The findings

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
of a recent large-scale experience-sampling study also sup-
ported this, showing that participants were more likely to
report boredom when they were alone (Chin etal. 2017).
These emerging results suggest an association between bore-
dom and aloneness. Interestingly, Chin etal. (2017) found
that their participants, other than when being alone, also
reported boredom when they were with strangers or with
co-workers, but not with children, spouse, partner or friends.
This suggests that simply being with others does not neces-
sarily make one less bored—whom a person spent time with
and the relationship between them also matter.
In the current study, we were interested in examining
whether aloneness was indeed associated with higher levels
of situational boredom. As Chin etal. (2017) demonstrated,
in addition to feeling bored while alone, people can also feel
bored in social situations. Specifically, they found that social
situations with strangers or co-workers are more conducive
to boredom. This may be due to the relative lack of perceived
meaning in such situations. In line with this notion, Anu-
sic etal. (2016) noted that activities that are typically done
alone tended to be associated with high boredom ratings as
well as relatively low meaning ratings; whereas activities
such as taking care of children and socializing with friends
tended to be associated with low boredom ratings as well as
relatively high meaning ratings. We therefore suggest that
the feeling of boredom in a social situation depends on the
perceived meaningfulness of the situation. Situations that are
appraised as meaningful would be construed as less boring
in the presence of others; situations that are appraised as
meaningless would be more boring in the presence of others.
In this study, we examined the main effect of the presence of
others as well as its interaction with situational meaningful-
ness on state boredom.
In sum, in this experience-sampling study, we hypoth-
esized that situational meaningfulness would be associated
with state boredom, controlling for boredom proneness,
situational sadness, personality, and weekday versus week-
end; we further hypothesized that this association would be
moderated by whether one was alone or with other people.
Method
Participants anddesign
The sample of this experience sampling study included
242 participants recruited from The University of Hong
Kong through an online portal and through campus-wide
email. The study consisted of two Phases. Phase 1 col-
lected baseline data on a number of traits and demographic
information. Phase 2 was a 7-day experience sampling
using a smartphone app. All participants participated in
Phase 1, and 148 participants (61.1%) completed Phase
2. Over half of the participants were female (73.0%). The
average age was 19.2years (SD = 1.8).
Procedure andmaterials
Phase 1 Participants were invited to the lab to complete a
set of questionnaires through an online platform. Partici-
pants supplied baseline data including demographic infor-
mation and trait measures.
Boredom proneness: Boredom proneness was measured
with the 28-item BPS (Farmer and Sundberg 1986). Par-
ticipants rated items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample
items include “it takes more stimulation to get me going
than most people” and “I am often trapped insituations
where I have to do meaningless things”. Higher compos-
ite scores indicate higher boredom proneness. Cronbach’s
alpha was .78.
Big Five Personality: Personality was measured by the
10-item Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-10; Rammst-
edt and John 2007). The scale measures 5 dimensions of
personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism) with two items each. Par-
ticipants rated items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Spearman–Brown
coefficients ranged from .24 to .61.
Upon completing the questionnaire, participants were
assisted by a researcher to install a smartphone app called
Personal Analytics Companion (PACO; Baxter etal. 2015)
and were given instructions about the experience sampling
in Phase 2.
Phase 2 Participants received at least 5 notifications per
day from the PACO app over 7 consecutive days after Phase
1. Notifications occurred at random time intervals between
10am and 8pm. All notifications directed the participants
to fill out a brief questionnaire regarding their current affect
and activity. Specifically, participants reported their state
boredom (i.e., to what extent they are feeling bored right
now), situational sadness (i.e., to what extent they are feel-
ing sad right now), whether they are currently alone or
with people, their activity immediately before filling in the
survey, and the perceived meaningfulness of that activity.
State boredom, situational sadness, and perceived meaning-
fulness of the activity were rated on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), whereas being
with people was a binary selection (i.e., “with people” or
“alone”). If participants were found to show difficulties with
filling in the experience sampling or if they could not fulfill
the basic requirement of 3 entries per day for any reason, a
reminder email was sent to invite the participant to continue
participating the experience sampling.

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
Ethics Participants’ consents were obtained prior to Phase
1. Upon completion of the study, participants were either
provided with course credit or a one-in-fifteen chance lucky
draw for cash coupons. Ethical approval was received from
The University of Hong Kong prior to data collection.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analysis was performed with R. Accounting for
the nested data structure, item-level z-scores, and multi-level
modelling were applied to data analysis. Individual aver-
age and standard deviation of state boredom was calculated
across all time points for each participant. Subsequently,
the z-score of state boredom was generated. This item-level
z-scores accounted for the within-person variability when
comparing state boredom score for different activities.
Multilevel modeling (MLM) data analysis techniques
were used to account for the nested structure of the data with
3022 data points within 148 people using the lme4 package
(Bates etal. 2014) in R.
Results
The state boredom rating of each activity is reported in
Table1. Participants reported lowest state boredom scores
while interacting with somebody face-to-face (µz = − 0.37)
and exercising (µz = − 0.28). Meanwhile, only three activi-
ties were rated positive in the z-scores. Studying/working
was rated the highest (µz = 0.18), followed by using phone
for entertainment (µz = 0.06) and sleeping/resting (µz = 0.03).
The positive mean z-scores indicated an above average rat-
ing in state boredom within each participant across the
whole sample.
The intra-class correlations (ICCs) in the unconditional
model for state boredom and perceived meaningfulness
of the activity were r = .35 and r = .33, ps < .001, respec-
tively, indicating acceptable variability in both measures.
As the ICCs were calculated in the intercept-only model,
this reflected that 65% of the variability in state boredom
and 67% of the variability in perceived meaningfulness of
the activity were within persons. Means, standard devia-
tions and correlations between trait measures, state bore-
dom, situational sadness, and perceived meaningfulness
of the activity are reported in Table2. Boredom proneness
was significantly positively correlated with weighted aver-
age state boredom, r(133) = .30, p < .001, and state bore-
dom was significantly correlated with situational sadness,
r(3020) = .31, p < .001, and perceived meaningfulness of the
activity, r(3020) = − .16, p < .001.
MLM was used to test whether perceived meaningful-
ness of the activities predicts state boredom. Twenty-one
participants (14.2%) had missing data at baseline and were
excluded in the analysis, resulting in 127 participants in the
final analysis. For the within-day effects using MLM we first
compared a null (fixed intercept) model with the random
intercept model. Subsequently, we compared the better fit-
ting model with the random intercept and slope model. All
models controlled for gender, age, boredom proneness and
personality at Level 2, as well as weekend (vs. weekday),
being with people (vs. alone), and situational sadness at
Level 1. Chi square difference tests indicated that the ran-
dom slope models were significantly better fitting (Table3).
The 2-part equation for the best-fit model is given below:
where
b
0
j
=
g
00 +
m
0
jand b
1
j
=
g
01 +
m
1
j.
In the analysis, StateBoredomij was the dependent meas-
ure for time i on person j, and denotes the random slope
between meaningfulness and state boredom. β0j was the
intercept of the regression equation for participants, β1j was
the main effect of meaningfulness of the activity, and εij
was the residual within participants. The γs were the fixed
regression coefficient and µs were the residual between
participants. Meaningfulness, B = -0.145, p < .001, 95%
CI [− 0.206, − 0.084], and situational sadness, B = 0.189,
StateBoredomij
=
b0j
+
b1jMeaningfulness
+
eij
Table 1 Study 2: state boredom
rating in different activities
(n = 148; total entries = 3022)
Activities nNumber
of entries
Base rate (%) µzSDz
Interacting with someone face-to-face 115 432 14.30 − 0.37 0.92
Interacting with someone using your phone/smartphone 96 264 8.74 − 0.01 0.95
Using your phone for entertainment 126 403 13.34 0.06 0.94
Using your phone for study/work/information 67 138 4.57 − 0.05 1.04
Studying/working 143 1014 33.55 0.18 0.95
Sleeping/resting 97 242 8.01 0.03 0.98
Eating/drinking 92 231 7.64 − 0.08 1.02
Exercising 31 47 1.56 − 0.28 0.98
Doing errands/chores 45 80 2.65 − 0.16 0.82
Others 58 171 5.66 − 0.02 1.04

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
p < .001, 95% CI [0.123, 0.261], were significant predic-
tors of state boredom. Both boredom proneness, B = 0.014,
p = .019, 95% CI [0.002, 0.026], and extraversion, B = 0.160,
p = .003, 95% CI [0.058, 0.261], also significantly predicted
state boredom. People with higher boredom proneness and
higher extraversion reported higher state boredom. Being
with people was not a significant predictor of state boredom,
B = 0.126, p = .068, 95% CI [− 0.011, 0.260].
Boredom andaloneness
Subsequently, an interaction term between meaningfulness
of the activity and aloneness at each moment was added to
the model. The model with the interaction term was tested
against the best-fit model in the prior analysis. Chi square
difference tests indicated that the model with the interaction
term was significantly better fitting (∆χ2 = 38.27, p < .001).
The 2-part equation for the model with interaction term is
given below:
where
b
0
j
=
g
00 +
m
0
j,b
1
j
=
g
01 +
m
1
j,b
2
j
=
g
02 +
m
2
jand
b
3
j
=
g
03 +
m
3
j.
In the analysis, β3 was the within-participants interac-
tion between meaningfulness of the activity and aloneness.
StateBoredom
ij =
b
0j+
b
1j
Meaningfulness
+
b
2j
Being with People
+b3
j
Meaningfulness ×Being with People +e
ij
The interaction term was found to be significant in the final
model, B = 0.108, p = .032, 95% CI [0.007, 0.205].
Simple slope analysis revealed that meaningfulness of the
activity was a significant negative predictor of state bore-
dom regardless of being alone, b = − 0.08, p = .004, or wit h
others, b = − 0.20, p < .001. That is, the higher situational
meaning, the less a people experienced state boredom. When
an individual is with others, however, situational meaning-
fulness comes with an even larger decrease in state boredom
compared to an individual who is alone (see Fig.1).
Discussion
In this 7-day experience-sampling study, as hypothesized,
perceived situational meaningfulness was associated with
state boredom. This association was found to be above and
beyond trait boredom, big-five personality traits, gender,
situational sadness, and day of the week. We also found a
significant interaction between perceived meaningfulness of
the activity and being with people on state boredom. The
presence of others seemed to have amplified the association
between perceived meaninglessness and state boredom.
The small positive association between trait and state
boredom is consistent with prior studies (e.g., Mercer-Lynn
etal. 2014). The fact that the predictive value of boredom
proneness on state boredom was modest suggests the rela-
tive importance of situational factors (Mercer-Lynn etal.
Table 2 Study 2: means, standard deviations and correlations between trait measures, state boredom and perceived meaningfulness
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
a Except between state boredom, situational sadness, and perceived meaningfulness, correlations are aggregated daily means within participant
M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1. Boredom proneness 105.13 (16.74)
2. Extraversion 5.79 (1.73) − .21*
3. Agreeableness 7.25 (1.42) − .36*** .12
4. Conscientiousness 5.91 (1.64) − .26** .10 .29***
5. Neuroticism 6.58 (1.96) .38*** − .21* − .23** − .10
6. Openness 6.77 (1.99) − .28** .29*** .06 − .09 − .03
7. State boredoma2.96 (1.10) .30*** .11 − .21* − .13 .00 − .05
8. Situational sadnessa2.54 (1.03) .29*** .02 − .22** − .17 .13 − .01 .31***
9. Perceived meaningfulnessa4.32 (0.90) − .09 .03 .03 .16 − .03 .23** − .16*** − .06***
Table 3 Study 2: Chi square
difference tests between MLM
models
df Deviance AIC BIC ∆χ2Δδϕ p
Fixed intercept (null) 23 9410.9 9456.9 9592.5
Random intercept model (RI) 24 9356.9 9404.9 9546.4 53.99 1 < .001
Random intercept & random slope
model (RIRS)
29 9308.0 9366.0 9536.9 49.00 5 < .001
RIRS model with interaction term 36 9269.7 9341.7 9553.9 38.27 7 < .001

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
2014). It is a long-held perspective that boredom can stem
from the lack of meaning (Barbalet 1999; Fahlman etal.
2009; Van Tilburg and Igou 2012). Our study augments the
growing literature evidence supporting the link between situ-
ational meaningfulness and situational boredom. Although
we cannot draw a causal link between the two constructs,
other experimental studies have suggested that the relation-
ship may be dynamic and bidirectional (Fahlman etal. 2009;
Van Tilburg and Igou 2011) or that meaninglessness may be
a central characteristic of boredom itself (Van Tilburg and
Igou 2017a, b).
In our study, being alone vs. with other people was not
found to be associated with state boredom. Past studies have
shown inconsistent results on this association; in some social
situations people feel more bored than others (e.g., Chin
etal. 2017). The appraised meaningfulness of the activity
may be a moderator. Indeed, in this study, we found an inter-
action between perceived meaningfulness and being with
people in predicting state boredom. One possible explana-
tion is that being with other people changes the expecta-
tions one has for the activity. Generally speaking, human
beings are gravitated towards social and shared experiences
(Burger 1995). Identifying with others, especially members
of an ingroup, can help re-establish a sense of meaning (e.g.,
Castano etal. 2002; Greenberg etal. 1997) and reduce the
sense of boredom (Van Tilburg and Igou 2011). Perhaps
our expectations for meaningfulness are increased when we
are with others, compared when are alone. When the lived
experience falls short of our expectations, the resulting dis-
appointment—in this case boredom—is magnified.
Another possible explanation is the contagion of boredom
in a social setting. That is, we suspect that viewing others
being bored in a relatively meaningless situation makes it
even more boring. Emotional contagion is a well-established
phenomenon (Hatfield etal. 1994), yet to our knowledge no
work has been done on boredom in particular.
Being with others may modulate boredom by increasing
or limiting excitement. Thus, there may be an overall impact
of others on boredom. Yet, spending time with people who
we value (e.g., children, spouse, partner, friends) usually
involves meaningful activities or connections. As a result,
boredom ought to decrease when those people are around,
and this reduction in boredom should be mediated by the
meaning these people bring into the situation. Future studies
can explore the aforementioned possibilities.
A limitation of Study 2 was that due to the need to keep
the experience sampling questionnaire brief, we had very
limited information about the nature of relationship with
those present in the given activity the participants were
engaging in. We did not know, for example, whether the
Fig. 1 Simple slopes of per-
ceived meaningfulness predict-
ing state boredom while alone
and while with people (Study 2)

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
activity was engaged in collectively (e.g., playing sports
together) or was the activity simply done in the presence of
other people (e.g., attending a lecture).
Second, our study participants were from a convenient
sample of college students, who may experience boredom
more often than other populations (Chin etal. 2017) and
prefer not to be alone in order to avoid loneliness (Larson
etal. 1982). This may limit the generalizability of our find-
ings especially regarding the moderating effect of being with
people.
General discussion
Across two studies, we attempted to empirically establish
the negative association between the meaningfulness of
an experience and the level of boredom experienced. The
results consistently suggested that the situations that are per-
ceived as relatively meaningless are also the ones that elicit
boredom experience. This relationship is above and beyond
sadness (Studies 1 and 2) and personality traits and boredom
proneness (Study 2). We further provide some initial evi-
dence that being with other people in relatively meaningless
situations can increase the level of situation boredom.
Our studies provide data that suggest that perception of
the meaningfulness of a situation causes state boredom.
As discussed above, this finding produced experimentally
(Study 1) and invivo (Study 2), is consistent with theories of
boredom and earlier research (e.g., Barbalet 1999). Impor-
tantly, corroborating previous findings, the effect appears to
be independent of—or above-and-beyond—other psycho-
logical variables, including personality, boredom proneness,
and other emotions. Our conclusion is inconsistent with Chin
etal. (2017), which stated that perceived lack of meaning is
not characteristic of state boredom. This discrepancy may be
due to the fact that perceived meaningfulness was measured
in our study and assumed in Chin etal. (2017). As perceived
meaningfulness of an activity is arguably idiosyncratic and
circumstantial, our approach may be more robust and thus
provides a more reliable evidence of its association with
state boredom.
It should be noted that although we found a consistent,
inverse relationship between situational meaningfulness and
state boredom, the effect sizes were small. This suggests
that there might be other, unaccounted for, factors that are
contributing or causing state boredom. Other researchers
have proposed alternative models, such as lack of regulatory
fit (Struk etal. 2016), opportunity cost evaluation (Kurz-
ban etal. 2013), and maximization of subjective experi-
ence (Gomez-Ramirez and Costa 2017). Although meaning
appraisal and these other proposed models are conceptu-
ally related (e.g., an activity is appraised as less meaningful
because other competing tasks seem to be more worthwhile),
more work is needed in terms of clarifying the antecedents
of boredom. Furthermore, the causality inferred from the
current studies would need to be corroborated by additional
experimental results.
Future studies may seek to further examine the potential
dynamic nature of the relationship between perceived mean-
ingfulness and boredom. It remains a possibility that the
casual relationship is bidirectional. Furthermore, our partici-
pants were from affluent and industrialized regions (Ireland
and Hong Kong), arguably with relatively more opportuni-
ties to question the meaningfulness of their activities and
higher expectation to not feel bored (Svendsen 2005). Cross-
cultural studies should be conducted to examine whether the
link is equally robust in other parts of the world.
Given that boredom is found to be associated with a host
of undesirable outcomes, including academic performance
(Pekrun etal. 2010), our results should help encourage edu-
cators to identify means to reduce boredom by increasing
students’ perceived meaningfulness of their learning activi-
ties, especially those that are engaged in collectively. Indeed,
Nett etal. (2010) found that students who coped with bore-
dom by reappraising the importance of the lesson experi-
enced boredom less frequently in class. They argued that
this type of coping strategy is effective in reducing boredom
because it may help increase the perceived value of the situ-
ation. Future research is also needed to examine the detailed
features of the situations that are interpreted as meaningless
and potential moderators.
Study 1 indicated that sadness also involved some level
of perceived meaninglessness, albeit not as prominent as for
boredom. How does boredom differ from sadness? Other
studies that examined this question (e.g., Van Tilburg and
Igou 2012, 2017a) suggest that there are a number of differ-
ences between boredom and sadness. First, boredom is much
more prominently associated with a lack of meaning and
the subsequent search for meaning that these other states.
In addition, boredom is especially associated with a lack of
perceived purpose (teleological meaning; Van Tilburg and
Igou 2013). Other differences between these states include
that boredom, different from sadness, involves a deeply felt
lack of challenge and attentional disengagement.
In our present investigation we did not examine how bore-
dom may relate to depression, which also involves a lack of
perceived meaning (e.g., Steger etal. 2006). Indeed, several
studies show a correlation between depression and indi-
vidual differences in boredom proneness (see Vodanovich
2003), yet, this association has hardly been studied. We
speculate that the lack of meaning associated with boredom
may be the key element that binds these two phenomena. In
particular, perhaps prolonged, chronic, and unresolved expe-
riences of boredom may eventually contribute to the devel-
opment of depression. This remains of course an empirical

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
question and we encourage future research to examine this
link.
Conclusion
Boredom is a ubiquitous experience distinctive from other
emotions. Employing different methods, our two studies
converged to suggest that people tend to feel bored when
they perceive what they are doing as meaningless. This
association between boredom and meaninglessness emerges
above and beyond sadness, various personality traits, and
individual differences in boredom proneness. These results
emphasize the central role of perceived meaninglessness as
characteristic of state boredom.
References
Altschule, M. D. (1965). Acedia: Its evolution from deadly sin to psy-
chiatric syndrome. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 111(471),
117–119.
Anusic, I., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2016). The validity of the
day reconstruction method in the German socio-economic panel
study. Social Indicators Research, 1(130), 213–232.
Barbalet, J. M. (1999). Boredom and social meaning. The British Jour-
nal of Sociology, 50(4), 631–646.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Lme4: Linear
mixed-effects models using eigen and S4 (R package version1).
Baxter, K. K., Avrekh, A., & Evans, B. (2015). Using experience sam-
pling methodology to collect deep data about your users. In Pro-
ceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts
on human factors in computing systems (pp.2489–2490). New
York: ACM.
Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude.
Journal of Research in Personality, 29(1), 85–108.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong,
therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and
ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2),
135–143.
Chin, A., Markey, A., Bhargava, S., Kassam, K. S., & Loewenstein, G.
(2017). Bored in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in
everyday life. Emotion, 17(2), 359–368.
Coughlan, G., Igou, E. R., Van Tilburg, W. A. P., Kinsella, E. L., &
Ritchie, T. D. (2017). On boredom and the perceptions of heroes:
A meaning-regulation approach to heroism. Journal of Humanis-
tic Psychology. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00221 67817 70528 1.
Culp, N. A. (2006). The relations of two facets of boredom proneness
with the major dimensions of personality. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 41, 999–1007.
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The
unengaged mind defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482–495.
Elpidorou, A. (2014). The bright side of boredom. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 5, 1245.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer, K. B., Gaskovski, P., Eastwood, A. E., &
Eastwood, J. D. (2009). Does a lack of life meaning cause bore-
dom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and experimen-
tal analyses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(3),
307–340.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D. B., & Eastwood, J.
D. (2013). Development and validation of the multidimensional
state boredom scale. Assessment, 20(1), 68–85.
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness–the
development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human
Relations, 46(3), 395–417.
Gerritsen, C. J., Toplak, M. E., Sciaraffa, J., & Eastwood, J. (2014).
I can’t get no satisfaction: Potential causes of boredom. Con-
sciousness and Cognition, 27, 27–41.
Goldberg, Y. K., Eastwood, J. D., LaGuardia, J., & Danckert, J.
(2011). Boredom: An emotional experience distinct from apa-
thy, anhedonia, or depression. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 30(6), 647–666.
Gomez-Ramirez, J., & Costa, T. (2017). Boredom begets creativity:
A solution to the exploitation–exploration trade-off in predictive
coding. Biosystems, 162, 168–176.
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror man-
agement theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empiri-
cal assessments and conceptual refinements. Advances in Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 29, 61–139.
Greenson, R. R. (1953). On boredom. Journal of the American Psy-
choanalytic Association, 1(1), 7–21.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional
contagion: Cambridge studies in emotion and social interaction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, J. A., Abraham, E. H., Hunter, A. G., Goldberg, L. C., &
Eastwood, J. D. (2016). Personality and boredom proneness in
the prediction of creativity and curiosity. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 22, 48–57.
Hunter, J. A., & Eastwood, J. D. (2016). Does state boredom
cause failures of attention? Examining the relations between
trait boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention.
Experimental Brain Research. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0022
1-016-4749-7
Isacescu, J., Struk, A. A., & Danckert, J. (2016). Cognitive and affec-
tive predictors of boredom proneness. Cognition and Emotion,
23, 1–8.
Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An
opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task perfor-
mance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679.
Larson, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1982). Time alone
in daily experience: Loneliness or renewal. In L. A. Peplau &
D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,
research and therapy, pp.40–53. New York: Wiley
Martin, M., Sadlo, G., & Stew, G. (2006). The phenomenon of bore-
dom. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 193–211.
Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Bar, R. J., & Eastwood, J. D. (2014). Causes of
boredom: The person, the situation, or both? Personality and
Individual Differences, 56, 122–126.
Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D. B., Fahlman, S. A., & Eastwood, J.
D. (2013). The measurement of boredom: Differences between
existing self-report scales. Assessment, 20(5), 585–596.
Merrifield, C., & Danckert, J. (2014). Characterizing the psychophysi-
ological signature of boredom. Experimental brain research,
232(2), 481–491.
Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom.
The Psychological Record, 43(1), 3–12.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Daniels, L. M. (2010). What to do when feel-
ing bored?: Students’ strategies for coping with boredom. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 20(6), 626–638.
Neu, J. (1998). Boring from within. In W. F. Flack & J. D. Laird (Eds.),
Emotions in psychopathology: Theory and research, pp.158–170.
New York: Oxford University Press

Motivation and Emotion
1 3
Ng, A. H., Liu, Y., Chen, J. Z., & Eastwood, J. D. (2015). Culture and
state boredom: A comparison between European Canadians and
Chinese. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 13–18.
O’Connor, D. (1967). The phenomena of boredom. Journal of Existen-
tialism, 7(27), 381–399.
O’Hanlon, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory.
Acta Psychologica, 49(1), 53–82.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1999). Developmental change in the
sources of loneliness in childhood and adolescence: Construct-
ing a theoretical model. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.),
Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp.56–59). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R.
P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–
value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emo-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 531–549.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one
minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory
in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,
203–212.
Ritchie, T. D., Batteson, T. J., Bohn, A., Crawford, M. T., Ferguson,
G. V., Schrauf, R. W., etal. (2015). A pancultural perspective on
the fading affect bias in autobiographical memory. Memory, 23,
278–290.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal
in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4),
813–838.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning
in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for
meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
Struk, A. A., Scholer, A. A., & Danckert, J. (2016). A self-regulatory
approach to understanding boredom proneness. Cognition and
Emotion, 30(8), 1388–1401.
Svendsen, L. (2005). A philosophy of boredom (J. Irons, Trans.). Lon-
don: Reaktion.
Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2011). On boredom and social
identity: A pragmatic meaning-regulation approach. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1679–1691.
Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of chal-
lenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation
and Emotion, 36(2), 181–194.
Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2013). On the meaningfulness of
behavior: An expectancy x value approach. Motivation and Emo-
tion, 37, 373–388. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1103 1-012-9316-3.
Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2017a). Boredom begs to differ:
Differentiation from other negative emotions. Emotion, 17(2),
309–322.
Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2017b). Can boredom help?
Increased prosocial intentions in response to boredom. Self and
Identity, 16(1), 82–96.
Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Psychometric measures of boredom: A
review of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 137, 569–595.
Wallbott, H. G. (1998). Bodily expression of emotion. European Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 28(6), 879–896.